The applicant sought judicial review of two arbitration awards dealing with return to work grievances following a strike by academic staff.
The arbitration board had concluded that the collective agreement's workload provisions did not apply and developed its own principles to award additional compensation.
The Divisional Court found the board's decision unreasonable, as it ignored the language of the Return to Work Protocol and the collective agreement, which did not confer jurisdiction to create new compensation criteria.
The application for judicial review was granted, the awards were quashed, and the grievances were remitted to a different arbitration board.
